Reply With Quote
2 goals in 2 gamesing povertyball man
Truth. The last World Cup was egregious with this , as is soccer as a whole.
Soccer's estimated worldwide followers is around 3 billion. Cricket's is estimated at 2.5 billion. And we were first a cricket country until baseball displaced it, so if that held (and conceivably, we would've spread cricket to places where we spread baseball), cricket would be nearly on equal footing to soccer despite being a much less accessible and "less fun" (i.e. standing for hours in the field during a Test match waiting for a ball that never comes to you) sport. I'm just saying soccer isn't inherently more fun/superior, and if the Irish colonized the world at that time, you might be watching the Gaelic Football World Cup right now. If the Aussies did, you might be watching the Aussie Rules World Cup. Soccer does some logistic advantages, though. It's a sport more compatible with average sized humans than a sport like rugby, which helped it spread over rugby. Also, rugby was an elitist university sport back then, while soccer was the working man's game, and many of those Brit expats were working class.
2 goals in 2 games
Truth. The last World Cup was egregious with this , as is soccer as a whole.
First of all, Soccer's estimated number of followers is closer to 4 billions than 3. Also, Cricket is only popular in a limited number of countries and the only reason its number of estimated followers is so big is India. It really isn't a close argument, it's like saying Mandarin is a more popular language than English because more people speak it. Unfair, close-minded argument that tries to take advantage of a data singularity to change the focus of the real argument.
Don't know what this guy meant whether he meant in the US or worldwide but soccer has been king for years now. Your numbers above only show the US market.Seriously, though. Why do soccer fanboys constantly insist soccer is the "sport of the future" here? (been hearing this since the '94 World Cup, and before that, in the 70s when Pele came stateside). Here's an example. Important World Cup qualifying match between Mexico and the USA last year. This is the biggest rivalry in North American soccer, and the argument I keep hearing is that as Mexican immigration increases, so will soccer's popularity. I would guess there's 15-20 million illegal or 1st generation immigrants living in the States right now (Mexican-Americans who've been here for multiple generations do not give a about soccer). And yet, this "big match" that would have everyone in Brazil and Argentina huddled around the village televisions drew a pathetic 2 million (all those Mexicans obviously weren't watching). Worse than: NHL Finals, Horse racing, Random baseball game on Fox, Golf, and Nascar.
Another example. Seattle is probably the biggest MLS market in the US, with one of the most passionate fanbases. The opening Sounders match drew 2.4 in that market. A terrible Mariners team drew an average of 4.88 last season, and baseball has 600 games.
Is it marginally more popular here than it was 20 years ago? Sure. But it's not poised to displace any of the Big 4.
For people who don't know ing about soccer history in the US. The USA participated in the early world cups and until Mccarthyism was in full displayed it was a cherished sport in the US. After that time it started being associated with minorities and foreigners and sports like baseball and american football were considered more american. I'm just summarizing. It wasn't as simple as this.
But the US has a rich history in soccer during the first half of 20th century
Population is population. If India was broken up into 10 different countries, then Cricket magically becomes more worldwide? You don't think China, where soccer is the 1st or 2nd most popular sport inflates soccer's numbers likewise? That said, yes, I agree that soccer won out over a sport like cricket due to the inherent "fun factor," but my point is how a powerful empire influences culture. If we take your argument at face value, then is cricket the 2nd most fun sport to play? (note, any sport can be fun if you invest in it, but cricket obviously has some features that are initially unappealing, like standing around for hours doing nothing or waiting 5 hours to bat). I seriously doubt you'd claim cricket is the 2nd most fun sport to play.
no.
2nd bolded. Not really.
He was talking about the US market.
No. You need to read about your own history. That's all. But you are en led to your own ignorance. I have no issues with that ROLF
2nd bolded. Not really.
I know far more about our own history in this case than you do. First of all, we were settled by the English in the 1600s (as I'm sure you know), and the games the colonists brought with them were folk bat-and-ball and football games. Now those football games in question weren't anything like soccer that restricted use of the hands and more resembled a chaotic form of rugby than anything. A picture re-enacting "mob football." Pic is large, so I'm linking it. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/royal-shro...oms-uk-1542973
These folk bat-and-ball and football games eventually gave way to cricket and loose forms of rugby, the former being the defacto "national sport" of the US until baseball (refined with the help of a cricketer) displaced it. The first baseball league in this country was founded in 1857, six full years before soccer was even invented. And those informal rugby games eventually started to develop into American football, with the first game played in 1875 (at this point, AmFootball still more resembled rugby). The sport quickly spread throughout East coast universities. The first organized soccer league in the world wasn't founded until 1888, so baseball and Amfootball obviously had a decade head start in organizational structure before soccer started to spread proper around the world.
So by the time soccer arrived fully formed here (beyond pick up games played by universities and such), baseball was firmly entrenched as the professional sport, while American football was the college game. By the turn of the 19th century, soccer would find itself in too much of a crowded sports landscape (that now included tennis and a nascent basketball) to really ascend to national relevancy. Now it's true that in the following years up until the Great Depression, the US had a somewhat successful soccer league, but its relevancy was nowhere close to Major League Baseball and NCAA football/basketball. The final death knell for US soccer at this time was the infighting between USAF and ASL, leading to the collapse of both leagues. Soccer then basically went dormant for 30 years. Had nothing to do with McCarthy or anyone else appealing to American patriotism. Soccer was fighting an uphill battle from the beginning having to compete with other sports and then failing to properly develop a professional league. It should illustrate how fringe soccer really was that the MLB could survive the Great Depression (along with the young NFL), but the pro soccer leagues couldn't. The interest wasn't there to that extent.
I agree with your overall argument but you're totally off base here, no pun intended. Basketball needs a way shorter season if anything, for player stamina and fan attention.
I won't even get into baseball, where despite playing so many games, records tend to range within 40-50 games of each other, just as in basketball, which has half as many games. Baseball would do just fine if every team played each other 3-4 times or in each league 6-7 times with some interleague play. They play so much yet don't even play every team every year or settle most tiebreakers via H2H. Both are ridiculous after 162 games.
Still better than countless 0-0 and 1-1 ties but ignorant none-the-less.
Soccer is the cheapest to play. No equipment except a ball or rolled up newspaper.
Rugby is the same.
But far more dangerous and painful, thus soccer wins out. And if you do want to play safe, the price relatively skyrockets.
but only soccer can be played by the poor
I disagree. What has turned me off the NBA as the years have gone by is how superstar dependent the league has become (which they love from a marketing standpoint of course because it constantly feeds these asinine "hot take" shows content to debate). It bores me from a roster building standpoint and makes the league more uninteresting as a whole due to the lack of parity. If the NBA lengthened the season, I'm not suggesting superstars will be the ones playing every game. What would result is teams now having to build deeper rosters (rosters would have to be expanded) to hold serve when the star players are resting. You would get more lineup variation and more interesting long term strategic planning. This obviously wouldn't happen because fans "pay to see the stars," so there would obviously be a lot of dislike paying for a ticket to watch your club's B-team. I like it because the country and world is too in' celebrity obsessed as it is. Sport over stars is my philosophy, and the NBA becomes a much better sport with a longer season.
Your suggestion to limit the MLB season to that many games would turn baseball into star dependent sport just the same. My team lost its two best players on offense and defense this season, yet they are making a charge because the farm hands they've developed are excelling, so for a fan of any given MLB team, there's no "melting down" when you lose a star, like in the NBA. If your club develops right, you can mitigate the impact of losing a star or multiple stars. Meanwhile, upstairs, it's an Armageddon-level meltdown about Kawhi. Kershaw is all time great pitcher, but if there were drama about him "wanting to leave" I wouldn't give a . No single player has a disproportional impact in baseball like in basketball. Shortening the season would place too much value on single players and make it impossible for a team to fade injuries to key players.
You can make pick up games of all sports out of trash. Difference is, you can play soccer that more closely resembles the real thing far more cheaply than you can play baseball. Find an open field, a ratty hand me down ball, some trashcans to mark off goals, and you have a decent representation of the sport. It can also be played in a variety of different sized spaces (think indoor or street soccer). You need a large space to play baseball. Baseball on a basketball court sized area would be in' stupid. No kid wants to just hit a ball 90 feet. You need decent distance between bases, too short, and you'd never throw anyone out. Balls are a bit harder to come by because make shift balls out of wadded tape, paper, whatever get destroyed practically as soon as they're hit. Tennis balls also don't last long. You want something hard and durable, and then you need gloves.but only soccer can be played by the poor
Soccer is just way more accessible. I live in a pretty wide open suburban neighborhood, with a 150 x 75 foot field next door. That's a decent size space not many people have immediate access too and it's still too small and narrow to really play decent baseball, especially given the fact there's a building on the left and houses and parked cars on the right, so hardball is out of the question. Only baseball you can really play is homerun derby with whiffle balls and every time I take my friend's kid out there to hit, we lose balls to the roof of the building. But it's a perfect area for 5 on 5 soccer.
The difference between the NFL, NCAA, and FIFA corruption is the flavor of the mafias who support them and the amount of the $$ pot. The NFL just blackballed a player at it's most important position b/c of politics. That's pretty corrupt. The NFL stadium deals are shamelessly anti city the same way that FIFA is with the world cup. THe NFL went full tobaccco denier on concussions too. The NFL also protects abusive players. The NFL sat on it';s steroid loving ass unlike baseball.
There are numerous reasons that playing 162 games makes little sense. You wouldn't need as many stars if the season was shortened but you'd still have to build your roster pretty much the same way except less pitching depth. And who, how often, has more than 3-4 really good starting pitchers? Who has more than 1-2 really good pitchers in the bullpen? It would just cut some of the fat out honestly.
And besides, regardless of how you build your roster, baseball is such a luck driven sport. A bounce here, a pitch there, a throw there, a missed opportunity on a bad pitch, a bad swing and a missed opportunity, a hit on a good pitch or lucky infield/bloop single, etc... Even the best of the best go entire games and sometimes multiple games in a row without a hit or making a significant offensive contribution. Like I said, the difference is often 35-40 games between teams, that you need to play that many games to determine the best team is ridiculous and to top it off, they usually break ties with one game playoffs after all of the flights, travel and games in 6 months. Why even play that long? Then the best team from the season usually never makes/wins the World Series.
You're suggesting to shorten it to like 60 games. At that point, the formula is: sign two great starting pitchers and a closer and a couple of good bats.
The difference between bad and good teams can be 40 games, but not between the the top teams in the division. Baseball isn't luck driven.
But parity is better because the skill gap between teams is smaller since baseball's talent pool is larger than basketball's.
No, the NBA to 58-60. Baseball to 80-100. Basically every Thursday+weekend from April to September or every dayish for about three months.
I'd hate to be a player. Even if I grew up loving playing baseball, would I want to play it every day pretty much for six months? Only the starting pitchers take a sigh of relief, other than the three day recovery from pitching their asses off.
I consider you really intelligent in this debate but that will change if you say things like baseball not being luck driven. Skills are very important, throwing a 100 MPH fastball is nothing to sneeze at nor is hitting one but few sports are more about luck and random chance than baseball. It's just that you statistically expect certain results after a certain period of time.
It's not any more so than other sports. Stats confirm it, and baseball used to have some of the worst parity in American sports during its golden age. "Luck driven" implies you or I would have equal chance at success during an AB as a professional baseball player, like we would if we all bought a lottery ticket. Even over a 5 pitch sample size, we would not outperform an MLB player. Shifts works because of this fact. Hitters have patterns. Making contact doesn't randomly send the ball anywhere and everywhere. Even over short sample size knockout tournaments like the World Baseball Classic. Japan, the Dominican, and the US have won every tournament, and these are the top 3 baseball countries in the world (Venezuela aside).
I would be okay with a 100 games if they could increase ABs per game. I've said before pro baseball games used to take around 1:30 way back when. 2:30 is a nice time for a sporting event, so if players play with pace, we could theoretically have 90 out baseball over 9 innings, meaning 5 outs to get out of every half-inning. This translates into more balls in play, seeing more of the Mike Trouts, Aaron Judges, Altuves, etc on offense, seeing more great fielding on defense (more balls in play, more chances of a defensive highlight), and less pitching dominance since pitchers would have to pace themselves and pitch to more contact.
We're not even talking about your idiotic OP. Povertyball forum is that way>>>. Go watch another thrilling 1-0, 1-1 game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8632327/continuum.png)